<p>passage 2 in the bees definitely listed things that beekeepers typically encounter. They aren’t threats to the bee population because they are everyday things that happen all the time (as implied by the passage)</p>
<p>And the consensus was impassioned/ inconclusive… the argument may have been polarized but was definitely not fruitful (which means conducive to productivity)</p>
<p>Does anyone know what answer choice (1/3) was for the parallelogram question. I remember putting either B,C,or D, but definitely not A or B.</p>
<p>Satman I agree with you and I put impassioned inconclusive but it did say in the text that the debate gave us the tools to listen critically…</p>
<p>@samuelkim @satman Thanks for clearing that up. It does make sense. I guess I overlooked the less dramatic tone. I also put impassioned/inconclusive.</p>
<p>Can I get a google doc link?</p>
<p>No problem man I hope you did well.</p>
<p>hopefully all these “ambiguous” questions will lead to a very generous curve!!! So far I have 2 definite wrong, and probably 1 or 2 I don’t know about. Hoping for a 760+</p>
<p>what did you guys get for the differences between the two agricultural passages?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the answer choice was polarized, but surprisingly fruitful</p>
<p>no where in the passage did it even mention a “surprisingly” fruitful event.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what answer choice (1/3) was for the parallelogram question. I remember putting either B,C,or D, but definitely not A or B.</p>
<p>Also, Can I just note one thing? On the google doc, people rated the Critical Reading Section as 4, implying that it was easy. I agree, the passages were easy to understand, but judging by the enormity of this thread and the fact that a majority of posts are related to CR and the fact that there are so many conflicting choices (mundane vs romantic, problematic vs. questionable, inconclusive vs. polarized), I would think that people would rate it as more difficult than previous ones.</p>
<p>Beekeeping (comparing passages)</p>
<p>The author of passage 1 would most likely argue in response to the author of passage 2 that → problematic because his evidence was unsupported because of personal opinion (CONFIRMED)</p>
<p>Does anybody remember the other choices for this one?</p>
<p>The answer choice was either C or D, can’t remember. And yeah CR was difficult imo.</p>
<p>Also a reminder that doc link on my profile :P</p>
<p>hmmm, for the bees one, I put questionable because the evidence points otherwise. The author of passage 1 states that studies show that there is a drastic decrease in bees, while passage 2 states a study that it’s not that drastic. According to that, it should be questionable.</p>
<p>Unsupported because of personal opinion doesn’t even make sense because passage 2 is based completely on facts, giving the results of studies, not opinion.</p>
<p>^this was my argument exactly. I understand that there is room for debate, but I’m a lil confused as to why it is (CONFIRMED) on the google docs. It just seems implausible. Either that, or I’m missing something…</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure both of you are right and the GDoc is wrong.
Also did you guys put scholarly neutral or slightly derisive? I probs got this wrong…</p>
<p>I would really appreciate it if someone shared the google doc with me.</p>
<p>Is there a clear consensus on the “explain any misconceptions” vs. “undermine a claim” argument?</p>
<p>Personally it sounded like it was explaining any misconceptions to me.</p>
<p>@samuelkim…in now way could I find the certain lines of the Sousa passage to be neutral…I thought derisive was also a bad choice but it was the better of the two</p>
<p>never mind i got it</p>
<p>Was the misconception/ claim one the “however” question? I’m pretty sure it was undermine a claim. The however statement does not in any way explain the misconception given, instead, the however statement serves to reject the claim and prove it is wrong, therefore undermining it.</p>
<p>I also feel like the Sousa passage was pretty neutral. In no place in the passage does he ridicule or scorn anything. The passage as a whole is neutral as he describes two conflicting sides of a debate then gives his own insight for a compromise</p>